- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 07:40:49 -0800
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Peter, this is a bit overly subtle for me. Can you say what exactly you see as violating RDFS? I'll tell you what I see and you can tell me how I'm wrong ;-) - when a property is itself a resource (X rdfs:label Y) then this has the RDFS meaning. What I see is that the resource that is named with rdfs:label in the case of SHACL is the blank node. Now, what's the real problem? I assume it's not just wording. Thanks, kc On 11/5/15 3:57 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > I had long thought about using new properties such as sh:label and > sh:definition instead. I decided to prefer rdfs:label and rdfs:comment, > because these properties are most likely already used as annotations on > the shapes, classes and other resources in SHACL files. People will get > confused which property to use in which context, adding just another > unnecessary complication in the learning curve. > > Since a property constraint resource describes the use of a property in > the context of a shape scope, I see no reason why using rdfs:label would > violate the official spec. > > PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-112 - no change required. > > Holger > > > On 11/6/2015 7:55, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> shapes-ISSUE-112 (misuse of RDFS properties): SHACL uses RDFS >> properties in ways that violate their intended RDFS meaning [SHACL Spec] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/112 >> >> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider >> On product: SHACL Spec >> >> >From http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/: >> >> Property constraints may have an rdfs:label to provide a >> human-readable label for the property in the scope where it appears. >> >> >From http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ >> >> rdfs:label is an instance of rdf:Property that may be used to provide >> a human-readable version of a resource's name. A triple of the form: >> R rdfs:label L . states that L is a human readable label for R. >> >> The SHACL use does not abide by the RDFS meaning. SHACL should not >> use RDFS properties in ways that violate their RDFS meaning. >> >> Similarly for rdfs:comment. >> >> >> PROPOSAL: Remove the non-conforming wording for and uses of >> rdfs:label and rdfs:commment. >> >> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 15:41:20 UTC